MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

The change to iNtel is looking better all the time.

yes, it is looking better, just as I told some of you on day one.

As things stand, the only way you could be against it is if Apple does not hold hardware standards up where they need to be.

And bigger yet, the only was I could be against it is if, deep down, I believed the OSX could not really compete against Windows.

We know it can, why are some of you scared?

Intel inside. Fine. Just, please, don't force Apple to play that stupid dink-doo-doo-dink theme in tv commercials. I hate that.

OH FRICKING GET OVER IT!!!!! NO ONE WANTS TO RUN WINDOWS ON MACS. Haven't people got anything else to theorize about?

This is step two in gaining marketshare. Step one was to build an OS and surrounding apps (iLife) that blows the doors off of Windows. Step 3 will be licensing OS X. The war has begun. The troops are marching. Microsoft better start working their asses off.

The coup de grace would be for Apple to actually build an Office-killer. Now THAT would be a trick. I doubt anyone could do it, but you can never count Apple out...

Virtualization looks to be exciting technology. It will lower the psychological barrier to entry for millions of potential Switchers, who know will have a Mac that can run all their familiar Windows app at full speed. But I'm sure once they begin using OS X, they will leave Windows behind very, very quickly.

Still, Apple needs to play the cards right. The danger with virtualization is that developers will wrongly think they no longer need to develop apps for OS X since "Macs can run Windows anyway."

This gets especially dangerous if virutalization technology would allow apps to run in their own app spaces, without needing to run in a separate Windows "box" like VirtualPC. For example, you can run X11 UNIX apps in OS X in "rootless" mode, meaning you don't need a separate window that displays the X11 desktop and environment for your apps.

It would be relatively trivial to have Excel, for example, launch with its XP-style windows, menus, and palettes and the user never has to interface with Windows itself. At that point, developers could reason there's no need to produce a OS X native version of their apps.

Apple needs to make sure that developers get the Universal Binary religion. Developers need to understand that developing in OS X is leaps and bounds more productive, and that OS X native apps will perform much, much better than Windows native apps. And customers have to keep buying Mac versions and keep demanding developers continue to produce robust Mac versions.

theloniousMac: I couldn't agree louder.

I have been scratching my head wondering why anyone finds this to be such an attractive scenario. "Two for the price of one" blah, blah, blah.

Less than a tenth of one percent of all breathing humanoids who can pronounce "Apple" give a damn.

This "feature" wouldn't grow marketshare, it would reduce it. Furthermore, it makes as much sense for Apple as the idea of Pepsi offering Diet Coke.

Please, can we ignore the dimwits who publish articles fawning over this stupidity? Thank you in advance.

Knowing Steve Jobs (that sounds presumptuous, doesn't it?), I doubt he'll even let Intel put their logo on his machines, much less run their little soundbite over is commercials.

"Intel inside. Fine. Just, please, don't force Apple to play that stupid dink-doo-doo-dink theme in tv commercials. I hate that."

What bloody commercials??

I HAVE to run some windows only apps sometimes. I am psyched this is probably gonna be possible and am hoping I can use it as leverage to get my company to foot the bill for a new laptop - this will still be a long shot but one with much more of a chance of success because of the move to intel.

I agree: the ability to run Windows apps will kill the Mac software industry. You know, just like Virtual PC and X11 did! Wait...

IT professionals will nevAr let macs take over...

How can virtualisation possibly be a bad thing? There are times when in order to get something done one has no choice but to run Windows. It may not be all that often but it doesn't change the fact that the situation occurs.

For example there is no Mac OS option for getting maps into a Garmin GPS as Garmin choses not to produce a native app. Would I complain if all of a sudden I could run Garmin's Windows-only app on my MacTel without having to invest in VPC (which doesn't do the job for some GPS units)? Of course not.

The banks we deal with out here in the boonies want us to submit employee direct pay files that are generated using bank-supplied software that only runs under DOS. Fixed asset management software for Mac OS X sucks but MYOB's app only runs under Windows. Would I like to get rid of the sole PC in the corner of the office that is used to run obscure Windows-only apps?

What blows me away is how a bunch of negative twats (theolonius mac and informed) seem to have decided what the "rest of us" want and need to do.

There have been solutions to the need to run Windows on a Mac almost from the beginning. I can remember a box that we used to sell from a company called Dayna which latched on to the side of a 512K or Plus which provided an x86 processor and a 5.25" drive.

Apple themselves used to put cards into certain Performa models and bundled Windows with the units for gods sake. And then of course there was SoftWindows and VPC.

So if it happens great. Consider it a bonus. And stop whinging.

Magic word "trying" as in just trying to get my job done.

Question, if the new machines allow you to run windows apps at almost the same speed as if they were on OSX, what makes developers want to write for the Mac platform? Will all future software be written solely for PC's and we'll have to port it in?

Also, isn't Longshot supposed to require all new software? Several years ago I read that it would be built completely different from Windows, be more secure, and would not utilize or run any of the pre Longhorn software. Does anyone know if that is still true?

Virtualization could be critical in maintaining current mac users who NEED to run certain windows progs that have no viable mac counterpart. For example, the only viable general-purpose stats software for mac is SPSS, and their mac version typically lags 1-2 versions (1-2yrs) behind the windows version. Worse, many very useful specialty stats software (including freeware) is windows-only. I currently cope with "old" spss versions, virtualpc, and borrowed dell boxes (when virtualpc is too slow), but fast virtualization would solidify my mac loyalty by making me less vulnerable to the vagaries of special-purpose windows software that will NEVER have mac versions. For similar reasons, fast virtualization would remove a major obstacle for potential switchers. Windows-free would be nice but is not a professional option for many of us -- for the foreseeable future, fast virtualization is critical.

Now we know what MDN has been dreaming about all along--running Windows!

Allowing Mac's to run Windows will not kill native software development for the Mac OS. Apps are written today for both platforms for specific reasons. The Mac OS is far more feature rich than windows will ever be and developers will continue to take advantage of those features.

For one, how do you suppose MS (for example) would integrate the OS X Address book for use with a Windows spawned MS Word. Variables would have to be passed between the two OS's. It's too messy. You may be thinking .. well MS will want you to use the Windows Address Book or Outlook. Which anyone in their right mind that bought a Mac would know to not even go there because of window's virus issues.

How would windows spawned programs integrate with the iApp's or take advantage of core audio and video in OS X?

To Donnie who thinks IT professionals will never let Mac's take over.... think different. More and more IT professionals are choosing PowerBooks as their laptop of choice. I am an IT professional and im on a crusade to convert my windows loving corporate offices one at a time to OS X, and OS X Server. I've also started developing database software that is cross platform for them to make the transition easier for them. One down nine to go...

To the people who can't imagine in their right mind why someone would want to run windows on a Mac, its ok to climb out of your Apple utopia and visit the rest of the world. There are millions of custom apps that will never see XCode.

For companies that are spending time and money removing spyware, adware, malware, and viruses on a daily basis, the ability to run custom Windows apps on a Mac is priceless. A switch would never take place if they have to throw away the task specific custom software they just purchased last year for $300,000.

I wager a fair number of pounds that you wouldn't know what a "twat" was if it was sitting on your face.

I'm not in a Mac utopia, but the argument that Apple used to bundle a PC card in certain Performa models proves my point. Look how far that strategy got Apple (while Jobs was elsewhere, truly innovating).

Why is it that no one seems to remembers the plug being pulled from Mac clones? Why is it no one remembers all the LaserWriters, scanners, and even digital cameras that Apple used to sell? While Apple was trying to be all things to all people, the company floundered and suffered numerous losing quarters.

Openly endorsing and allowing your competitor's product to run on your machine is a bad idea. Any way you slice it.

It may be convenient to a few users. But, it is a horrible business strategy. Especially during a major hardware transition.

That's not "negative," FijiBoy, that's being smart.

Thelonius Mac, Informed and all the other nay-sayers:

Ignoring the marketing ramifications (and I can honestly say i know dozens of widoze lusers who definately try out a mac in this fashion), dual boot/virtualisation would be a boon to all of us that have to run windblows-only software.
I had to get a second (Wintel) laptop specifically to run a couple of vertical market apps, not availale for my PowerBook/Mac (and not suitable for VirtualPC as they rely on hardware 3D acceleration for medical imaging). I have to shower every time after using the darn thing.
Now if i could everything on the same laptop... And i don't think i'm alone.

Informed:

"Please, can we ignore the dimwits who publish articles fawning over this stupidity?"

AND

"That's not "negative," FijiBoy, that's being smart."

BLAH BLAH BLAH...

He/she continues with his air of superiority over all others. He is "informed", he is being "smart", and other people act/think stupidly.

He/she continues to ASSUME (which apparently is a silly thing to do) that being one of those "Less than a tenth of one percent of all breathing humanoids who can pronounce "Apple"" he knows what is best over all others.

Informed also asks: "Why is it no one remembers all the LaserWriters, scanners, and even digital cameras that Apple used to sell? While Apple was trying to be all things to all people, the company floundered and suffered numerous losing quarters."

Actually I have been "informed" that the LaserWriters were launched practically WITH the Mac, and it was the LaserWriter that propelled the Mac platform forward, particularly in creative/publishing business (some go as far as stating that the Mac, LaserWriter (first Postscript printer, c/o Adobe) and the launch of PageMaker for Macintosh basically "created" desktop publishing)

So Apple were pissing around with Scanners and Cameras when they were floundering, and when Jobs wasn't there they launched some crap products according to "informed".... mighty insightful stuff there!

Apart from the fact that MORE than 99.9% of all breathing humanoids who can pronounce "Apple" knew that, it is actually totally IRRELEVANT to what is happening NOW.

Apple will STILL be focussing on their KEY products, Mac OS X and Mac hardware (and digital lifestyle products). The ability to run Windows is “by product" of the Intel move, and it DOES have the potential to attract people to the platform.

I also wonder if the people nay saying the relevance of this information have EVER championed the fact that a UNIX command line is available with OS X.

Fact is an infinitesimal amount of people who use PC's on the planet would want to run a UNIX command line, even less know how to do so.

As such if this was such a value add for OS X, then being able to run Windows on the Mac as well is even MORE attractive to even MORE people.

"informed" is probably just not liking the fact that his/her superiority complex is being threatened by the likely influx of people that will use OS X and an Apple Mac in the next few years.

He/she originally threatened to abandon Apple as a result of the Intel processor change - I predicted he/she will still be here for years bitching and moaning about the whole thing, whilst still using a Mac (two weeks down and counting!)

"informed" also wrote: "Just when I could truly brag-up Apple, they shoot themselves in the foot and embrace 32-bit, backwards technology." (

AND

"That means the first MacTels will have all the memory addressing limitations of 32bit"

He also went on to "inform" me that: "Luke: You are way out of your league here. You are fact-devoid and belligerent to people who are laughing at your ignorance."

AND

"You really ought to keep quiet when you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about."

AND

"So yes, you are indeed an ignorant twerp."

Of course I cannot deny being an ignorant twerp - how can I argue with someone as well "informed" as - well - "informed"?

But as an ignorant twerp, that is out of my league, fact-devoid, has no idea what I am talking about, and is displaying belligerence to those laughing at me (rather than with me)... I have to ask is "informed" even AWARE of 64-bit x86 hardware?

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/6054/



I'm sure he has a condescending answer for me - I wait with "baited" breath...

Luke

I think most people would like to run Windows Apps without having to run the Windows OS with all of it's wonderful maleware. An emulation layer like Red Box or Wine as part of OS X 10.5 would be ideal.

I hate Windows but I need one program for work that's only on Windows for now. Eventually these little "exceptions" will go away when business catch on and move to more open programes. In the meantime, it's really nice to be able to own ONE computer--a Mac--and not two.

LukeInOz....bravo!

RE: "Question, if the new machines allow you to run windows apps at almost the same speed as if they were on OSX, what makes developers want to write for the Mac platform? "

Why would you not want to write software for the best OS; OSX?

When the public finds out about OSX, and it finally appears that they will, the question might then be: why would you want to write software for Windows, especially when everything, hardware and software will have to be replaced when Longhorn comes out.

OSX on Intel; the safer alternative to that.

I like the idea of windows running in a window rather than like classic.

If Windows apps can run native via Rosetta or RedBox, then malware and virii can run as well. Granted it can only affect that account, but it can still have disk access, randomly write data to the drive which does not alert OS X, or corrupt files.

In a window like in VPC, malware can only damage that drive and keep the real OS safe.

And why would we want enable Windows users to keep using windows programs? I rather have apps which can read and write the same data files.

You know there are dozens of articles lately all saying the same thing--that OSX can be run on windows machines--great--but what I want to see is an article that Apple will continue to support true blue powerpc machines--Apple should consider how software written for the new machines can be made compatable to the machines us suckers, I mean us
true blue loyal to Apple consumers will continue to own in a year or two.

LukinOz: Golly. I'm so humiliated. You sure are one swell debater. Gosh, golly, gee whiz.

I love how you grab a word (like LaserWriter) and launch an unrelated tangent and then proudly turn around and say, "See? You're wrong about the LaserWriter!"

All the while you ignore the fact that Apple no longer sells LaserWriters nor do you acknowledge any of the reasons why.

It isn't enough that you can't follow my logic well enough to intelligently debate me, you can't even follow your own.

Isn't it past your bedtime?

Informed - It is usually not a good idea to assume anything. Having had quite a few twats sit on my face (not negative ones though) I'm quite happy to take your pounds (bloody good exchange rate - equals about 3.3 of our dollar) and have confirmation that you're not as informed as you claim. You would have known that Fiji was a British colony until 1970 and we had our fair share of twats and pounds and all else that went along with colonisation.

Apple was first to market with a laser printer. And having chosen LocalTalk (hardware not AppleTalk the protocol) HAD to build its own printers. Ditto for scanners having chosen SCSI as the interface. Ditto for cameras with the DIN-8 (9) serial interface. Basically by having chosen to go with proprietry interfaces they had to build their own peripherals.

BUT Apple was also always ahead of the curve when it came to predicting what consumers would need. And so they brought product to market well before other peripheral manufacturers. It didn't hurt that in supplying the graphics market they also had some very well heeled customers who could afford these items. The original LaserWriter cost far more than any of Apple's computer offerings at the time (had a better processor too if I remember correctly). If you talk to a good platform agnostic IT person they will tell you that Apple produced the best network printers bar none and were often bought for deployment in Windows-only environments.

Ultimately of course the market caught up and offerings from Apple just looked over priced as they were produced in such small quantities.

The decision to go with Wintel standard interfaces such as USB has given Apple users access to a wider variety of equipment at cheaper prices. Wouldn't that be "Openly endorsing and allowing your competitor's product to run on your machine"???

Apple can charge a premium for its hardware quite simply because it is the ONLY hardware that will run Mac OS. You have made a concious decision to value the functionality and aesthetics of Mac OS above the premium you pay for the privilege to run it.

The same applies to the iPod/iTunes/iTunes Music Store model. There are cheaper, more feature laden alternatives as far as the hardware goes but you value the total package above the premium you are paying.

For an app to attract me it MUST deliver the full Mac experience ie the developer needs to subscribe to the notion that developing for the Mac is different. I will not run Windows for a number of reasons but one of them is quite simply how plug ugly those apps can be.

If a developer wants me to pay for an app and continue to pay as I upgrade they better deliver a quality product I want. And in this age of try before you buy it is quite easy to establish if an app is worth its asking price.

Thats why being able to run Windows apps on a MacTel is not a negative. If an app provides functionality that a Mac user needs but does not provide the aesthetic experience the developer may be persuaded to put some work into it if they see a reasonable sized market calling. And if they don't someone else will come along and do so - its called market forces.

Up until now developers have shied away from the Mac because of a perception of small market share. If virtualisation provides a bridge to draw fence-sitters onto the platform, lifts that market share and attracts developers it can only be a good thing.

What is important here is not to get carried away with the very small amount of information that we have access to. We don't know what they're going to do. I wouldn't presume anything. Over 20 years of involvement with Apple (as a reseller) has taught me that.

Magic word "march" - you can't stop the march of progress!

Lisa,

You keep posting about Apple abandoning PPC, leaving you behind, making you switch, blah, blah ,blah. Guess what - universal binaries will make sure your PPC is not ignored or forgotten.

If you don't believe it, start your class action suit you've been bantering about and watch the keynote address.

I own a DP 1.8GHz G5, I have no worries about software not being available for it. Other folks who've posted here have gone out a purchased new PPC machines AFTER the announcement because they understand your arguments are just uninformed FUD.

No article required. Steve Jobs has already said it from the moment the announcement was made.

After reading the interview with Jobs, none of this "switch to Intel" stuff even makes me think about "Windows on Mac." I'm thinking "lifestyle" products — stuff that plays out on the streets rather than in the corporate office. It's all very iLife, iWork, iPod, .Mac — and Mac hardware with Mac OS X as the hub. Probably more itegrated service product lines down the road (like iPod with iTunes). It's all about "do it yourself" and the entrepreneur.

The desktop is dead. There's no "battle of the OSs." Services and lifestyle products are Apple's future.

At the same time, Apple will continue to work for creative, science, and education markets because those are the fringe markets where Apple can continue to push the envelope of personal computing power. But I don't think Apple is much interested in bureaucratic markets.

FijiBoy:

I apologize for the crack. But you did start the name-calling.

You argue: "The decision to go with Wintel standard interfaces such as USB has given Apple users access to a wider variety of equipment at cheaper prices. Wouldn't that be 'Openly endorsing and allowing your competitor's product to run on your machine'???"

No it wouldn't. Anymore than using ethernet is. Or using ATA drives instead of SCSI. Embracing or changing hardware standards is a far cry from saying "go ahead and run Windows native on our clones."

While I appreciate that you remember the history of LaserWriters, you assume that I do not. I am in my late 40s. I was intimately involved with Apple in its early years (even before the Mac) and am quite aware of the changes the company has undergone and the reasons behind them. I am sure that I am not unique in that regard.

Yes, the Apple LaserWriter was first to market for personal computers (and no Luke, they weren't launched "practically with the Mac," bad grammar aside. They were introduced after the Macintosh II and used the same 68020 processor). Apple certainly did not invent the laser printer.

The LaserWriter's LocalTalk interface was a tiny hurdle for third parties to overcome (hell, third parties were beating Apple's dot-matrix printers for price/features and those lowly printers used the same serial port). The inclusion of true PostScript in the printer was the main hurdle. For example, HP's true PostScript printers were considerably more expensive than the rest of their printer line. But Apple's machines were always very expensive and offered far fewer features for the price (i.e.: multiple paper trays, 11x17, full bleed, etc.).

The LaserWriter died a slow death. I believe at one point Apple had about six different models and none of them were selling very well. After the insanely great IINTX, it was all downhill.

But I stand by the statement that Apple floundered massively when they tried to do it all, when they openly embraced Windows on their own hardware, and when their product line was confused and unfocused. I would hardly be the first person to make the same observation.

As for SCSI interfaces on scanners, there were MANY companies offering Mac-compatible scanners long before Apple (Sharp, AGFA, Microtek to name a few). There were even high-end scanners before Apple's entry (e.g. Sharp, AGFA, HEL). The high-end used NuBus card interfaces because Apple's motherboard implementation of SCSI was too slow.

And there were Mac-compatible digital cameras before Apple's, as well.

Apple wasn't forced to make common peripherals simply because of their interface design choices. Third parties were more than eager to make them. I was in technical sales for a major Mac peripheral manufacturer in the mid-and-late 80's. Apple was more than willing to let us make graphic cards and high-end monitors, even though Apple marketed their own. Our company even went on to briefly make Mac clones (have I given enough hints?).

That is all ancient history. Apple's new strategy of concentrating on software and offering only fairly unique hardware peripherals (e.g. Airport Express, iSight) is working. I hope they don't revert to their old ways of trying to compete in overly commoditized hardware lines. And to me, offering a Windows compatible clone is treading dangerously close to the old ways.

I guess I would also have to disagree with the statement that developers "shy away" from the Mac due to its' market size. The number of developers for Mac is disproportionately large relative to Apple's market, though I don't have the raw numbers to support that supposition. If you're referring to games, well yeah. But there are productivity titles for practically anything you need to do, and then some. Consider a company like Mark of the Unicorn. They are doing fine without even offering their flagship program for Windows. They have been thriving for over twenty years being Mac primarily.

I cannot see a strategy of allowing Windows to run natively on Apple hardware as a way of luring new developers to the platform. The exact opposite outcome would be more likely.

But you are right. Right now we don't have the whole picture. And the picture we do have is cloudy because the run-of-the-mill, Intel-based developer platforms Apple is selling give rise to much of this premature speculation. I just wish that Apple and Intel had settled upon a truly new chip family - one without the legacy baggage -rather than the Pentium line. Oh well.

And I will get to Fiji someday!